Did not vote: Amy Perkins, R-Seabrook; Lawrence Perkins, R-Seabrook; Adam Schroadter, R-Newmarket, excused; Terie Norelli, D-Portsmouth, presiding as speaker and does not vote except to make or break a tie.

— Jim Splaine

» Social News

PORTSMOUTH — A casino is not what Seacoast residents believe is in the best interests of the state, according to local lawmakers who voted against expanded gambling.

The House of Representatives voted 199-164 Wednesday to kill a Senate bill that would allow 5,000 video slot machines and 150 table games at one casino facility. Seacoast representatives were largely opposed to the bill, voting 21-9 to deem the bill "inexpedient to legislate."

"I just don't think having casinos in New Hampshire is going to make New Hampshire a better place to live and work, and it does nothing for the New Hampshire advantage," Rep. Pam Tucker, R-Greenland, said in explaining why she voted against the casino bill.

Rep. Laura Pantelakos, D-Portsmouth, was the only Port City representative who supported the casino. Pantelakos said it is hypocritical to allow charitable gaming but not a casino.

The defeat of expanded gambling puts the state and its residents in a more vulnerable financial position, Pantelakos said. She said programs such as Children in Need of Services and others that help the disabled and those with mental illness will not be able to provide the state what it needs in terms of services without the additional revenue a casino would purportedly have provided.

"I just hope that it is not all shifted back to the counties, the cities and towns," she said.

Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan's budget proposal includes $80 million in casino licensing fees as new revenue that would help support the programs Pantelakos mentioned. However, Tucker said it was irresponsible to build a budget on revenues from something not yet legal. She said the House and Senate must continue to work on building a "responsible" budget.

Rep. Tom Sherman, D-Rye, said local constituents were nearly unanimous in telling lawmakers to vote against the bill.

"One of the things I promised when I went into this was that I would try as best as I could to reflect the will of the people who elected me," said Sherman, who voted against the casino.

"It was the most difficult decision I've had to make all session," Sherman said. "I fully support the values that Maggie Hassan has promoted in her budget, and the difference is, how do we pay for those and what can we actually afford?"

Sherman said feedback he received from his constituents is that while residents recognize the need for more services for the mentally ill, disabled and other vulnerable people, no one wants or can afford higher taxes to fund those services.

The only areas of tax increases in the budget the House sent to the Senate were on gas and tobacco, he said. The Senate shot down both Thursday.

"The House budget and the Senate budget are worlds apart," Sherman said, explaining the Senate has more conservative revenue estimates. "If the Senate has its way, what we will likely end up with is a budget (that) shows no shift in priorities because the Senate won't fund them."

Rep. Patty Lovejoy, D-Stratham, expressed confidence the House will be able to work with the Senate to create a balanced budget without revenue from casino licensing. Lovejoy said when the budget goes to committee of conference between the House and Senate, discussions can resume about raising the cigarette tax by 20 cents, rather than 10 cents, and raising the gas tax to fix state roads and bridges.

Casino revenue would have been useless in any road projects because such projects would need to be bonded and you can't bond against casino revenue, Lovejoy said.

She also noted state revenues are starting to come in higher than anticipated.

Lovejoy said she did a lot of research about casino gambling and found that 40 to 60 percent of all slot machine gamblers are considered "problem gamblers."

"It was the social costs that really did it for me," she said. "I just can't vote in favor of something where we're going to end up hurting so many of our citizens to generate income."

Rep. Steve Briden, D-Exeter, said the failure of the casino bill is a big blow. "I think it puts us in a pretty tough position," he said. "There is going to be some increase in revenue because of economic recovery, but at the end of the day, we had a lot of cuts we wanted to restore and I'm not sure we're going to be able to restore them."

While both parties are divided on the vote, Briden said the failure of the bill hurts Democrats most because they ran on a platform of restoring cuts made by the previous, Republican-controlled House.

Rep. Chris Muns, D-Hampton, said he was surprised the House killed the casino bill before hearing any of the amendments, which he felt would have addressed some of the bill's flaws. Muns voted against killing the bill.

Rep. Renny Cushing, D-Hampton Democrat, said the House vote will make it difficult or impossible to restore funding to the state's university system and social programs, as well as additional funding for roads that casino revenue would have provided.

"We have all kinds of unmet needs at the state level. It's going to end up downshifting onto the local communities, said Cushing, who added he is preparing for what may be "a long month of June" in which the House and Senate attempt to reconcile their budget plans.